The mainstream media has begun to notice our efforts to protect our gun rights through state-level anti-commandeering laws – and in at least one surprising case, they’re getting it right. Mostly.
The Tuscon Sentinel reports that eight states have passed legislation voiding federal gun regulations. It also accurately describes the increasing distrust people have for their wise overlords in D.C. and how these laws have been passed in response to it.
Two quotes in particular convey the spirit behind this movement, one of which says “Underneath the policy jargon lies a culture of firearms woven into the heritage and politics of states whose histories were shaped by guns.”
Another is when the report discusses anti-commandeering in Montana:
“The pioneer spirit that brought their ancestors to the West still runs throughout Montana and neighboring states. That independence, locals say, is what influences their views on guns.”
In other words, people don’t like being told what to do. They especially don’t like being told what type of guns they can and cannot own and what they must do first to obtain them by people who have a direct incentive to keep them inadequately armed.
The report correctly identifies two separate versions of the legislation, one which uses the Commerce Clause to protect firearms manufactured and sold within their state from federal laws, and anti-commandeering, which prevents state law enforcement agencies from aiding the feds while trying to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.
The report, however, does include the requisite quote from a law professor whose faulty interpretation of the Supreme Clause falls neatly within the realm of conventional opinion. It also claims that nullification rarely succeeds (apparently someone forgot to tell that to Washington, California, and Colorado).
At the same time, the reporter quotes generously from our own Mike Maharrey and Michael Boldin, as well as give an objective description of Tenth Amendment Center without mentioning the Confederacy or slavery.
Interestingly enough, the article mentions that National Rifle Association (NRA) is opposed to anti-commandeering and nullification, claiming it would undermine their legislative efforts in D.C.
One must logically ask what sort of “efforts” they’re working on that would be negatively impacted by state legislation protecting the Second Amendment.
The article quotes NRA board member Todd Rathner as saying “I think that is a misguided distraction. I empathize with what they’re trying to accomplish, but I am not convinced it’s the right way to do it.”
If the “right way” involves maintaining a status quo whereby our right to keep and bear arms is always in jeopardy, then yeah, anti-commandeering is not the “right way.”
This opposition only goes to show that we can’t even rely on traditional defenders of our gun rights for help when taking actions to assert the proper state/federal balance as designed by the founders. In fact, some are even standing in the way, which makes our fight all the more arduous.
But the fight can be won, with your help.